What have we learned lately?

---

One of the most striking revelations is that no official project-level approval was ever granted by the City Council. While a conceptual endorsement of a bike park idea was discussed in past meetings, the actual construction, scope, costs, and vendor engagements were never formally reviewed or authorized by council through a public vote. This lack of approval undermines the transparency and legitimacy of the entire project.  

The city currently owes more than $132,000 to vendors for work that was never authorized as part of the city’s adopted budget. This includes substantial sums for grading, construction, materials, and project management. These expenses bypassed the council’s financial oversight, suggesting that significant financial decisions were made without authority.

Councilmembers and the public were repeatedly told that the city only spent $7,000 for the bike park, when in fact over $130,000 in unpaid services had already accrued. Multiple councilmembers recalled asking for financial breakdowns earlier in the year (including in March and April), but those requests were ignored or deferred. As one councilmember put it: "The public asked directly and we were lied to."

City Resolution 1077 requires that any donation over $5,000 must come before the council for review and acceptance. Despite this, several large donations — including two $10,000, and over $36,000 from the Redwood Coast Mountain Bike Association (RCMBA) — were not approved, publicly acknowledged or properly accepted according to policy. This failure violated city transparency rules and disrespected both donors and taxpayers.

The City has acknowledged that all work completed so far was based on conceptual designs, not engineered plans. There are no stamped blueprints, no verified compaction studies, and no records of proper inspections during or after the work was performed. This means the current state of the bike park could pose serious safety, liability, and environmental risks. As one official put it: “We have to figure out what’s actually out there.”

Portions of the park may have involved grading and land disturbance beyond what was permitted, and no clear documentation shows that the project underwent environmental review or planning commission oversight. The City is now considering backtracking through permits and possibly commissioning "as-built" reports to understand what was actually done — 

a costly and embarrassing scenario for a publicly funded project.

Several vendors were engaged for major work — including Wildland Operators, without evidence of competitive bidding, formal contracts, or clear scopes of work. This lack of documentation is highly irregular, especially for public projects, and violates standard procurement laws. It also creates confusion over who authorized the work, and whether the City is legally obligated to pay outstanding bills.

Councilmembers repeatedly asked who was managing the project, who hired the vendors, and whether any contracts were reviewed by city legal staff. No answers were provided during the meeting. It remains unclear whether former staff, local associations, or private individuals were directing public funds or assets without oversight. 

Some invoices submitted were for work done 6 to 12 months previously, with vague or incomplete descriptions. In one case, a $10,000 bill was submitted for landscaping work, but no landscaping appears to have been done at the park. In another, a $5,000 “donation” was assumed to cover an invoice, but it was later revealed that it did not apply to the City’s balance. These inconsistencies raise questions about fraud, miscommunication, or manipulation of public resources.

Perhaps the most damaging of all — the public was repeatedly given false assurances that the bike park was nearly complete and financially sound, even as unpaid bills piled up. Residents who asked hard questions were dismissed or ignored. Now, after months of confusion, the truth has surfaced — and the damage to public trust is substantial. The current council is now left to pick up the pieces, assess safety risks, and decide how to finish a project that was supposed to bring the community together.